[A] GP - The Woodpecker and Goedel's Theorum
ncw...@hotmail.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
In GP, we meet the group known as the Smoking GNU, who have invented a
clacks message known as the Woodpecker. The effect of sending this
message on the clacks network would be to set up vibrations in the
clacks towers that would cause the towers to break.
In the book _Goedel, Escher, Bach_ , Douglas R. Hofstadter introduces a
similar concept. In one of the dialogs he describes a record which,
when played on a particular record player, causes vibrations that break
the record player.
This record is intended as a metaphor for Goedel's Theorum. Is it too
much of a stretch to see the Woodpecker as the DW embodiment of this
Theorum ?
Cheers,
Nigel.
JB
An interesting comparison - There have been computer programs which
caused hardware damage by 'over stressing'
components of the system (not always through natural resonances - just
sometimes by making an amature jerk back and forth
repeatedly). In fact, back in the day of vaccum tubes (uh, I mean,
valves) and relays, certain commands would give rise
to certain audible sounds; the computer coud play music if it ran a
program with the proper commands in sequence.
I suspect TP was mimicing computer attacks (denial of service attacks?)
but had to make the Woodpecker exploit
a low-tech system like clacks towers: natural resonances is plausible.
Although, yours is an interesting point...
It makes me want to see the DW version of Goedel's theorem ... maybe
it's already there but I missed it?
Brian Wakeling
JB uttered thus:
What is Goedel's Theorem? If I knew what the real one was, I
might be able to help you spot the DW version, if it's already
been and gone.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
Sign in a shop:
"Credit will only be granted to people over 80
If accompanied by both parents"
Alec Cawley
Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu says...
This was not an accidental effect: it was a deliberate design function
so that you had some idea of what the hell the computer was up to. The
first computer I worked on, which was built with discrete transistors
rather than valves, had such a system. A loudspeaker was connected to
one of the bits in the CPU (the MS bit of the B register, IIRC). A
running program made a constant twittering noise. The only way you knew
your program has crashed or stopped was when this noise reverted to a
steady whistle. After a while one would get to know how certain programs
sounded - for example, when the compiler had switched from parsing to
code generation.
> I suspect TP was mimicing computer attacks (denial of service attacks?)
> but had to make the Woodpecker exploit
> a low-tech system like clacks towers: natural resonances is plausible.
> Although, yours is an interesting point...
> It makes me want to see the DW version of Goedel's theorem ... maybe
> it's already there but I missed it?
I see a resemblance between the Woodpecker and Hofstadter's destructive
record. However, I think that this is are both instances of the
destructive input pattern, and I don't see PTerry's use of it having
much to do with Hofstadter's relating a moderately common phenomenon to
Goedel's theorem. I see what H is at, but I think of it more as metaphor
than a strong relationship, and I see no sign that PTerry is following
that metaphor. PTerry is just referring to the fact that systems can be
susceptible to damage to pressures which, while apparently well within
the range normally accepted, can cause disastrous damage.
For those unfamiliar with it, a rough statement of Goedel's theorem is
that in any consistent logical system (such as, for example,
mathematics) there will always be statements whose truth or falsehood
cannot be proved *within the limits of that system*. You may design a
higher level system, of which your original subsystem was a subset, in
which you may be able to prove or disprove the original statement. But
that system, in turn, will have its unproveables.
--
@lec ©awley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
Ron Wellsted
Two possible [A]s here:
1/ The Great(internet) Worm, see
<http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Great-Worm.html>
2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
or am I seeing too many levels?
--
Ron Wellsted
http://www.wellsted.org.uk
r...@wellsted.org.uk
FWD:519961 Gossiptel:9309811
N 52.567623, W 2.137621
Richard Bos
> In article <d7htu3$9os$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>,=20
> Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu says...
> > ncw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >=20
> > >First some spoiler space:
> > >
> > >1
> > >
> > >2
> > >
> > >3
> > >
> > >4
> > >
> > >5
> > >
> > >6
> > >
> > >7
> > >
> > >8
> > >
> > >9
> > >
> > >A
> > >
> > >B
> > >
> > >C
> > >
> > >D
> > >
> > >E
> > >
> > >F
> > >
> > >This record is intended as a metaphor for Goedel's Theorum. Is it too
> > >much of a stretch to see the Woodpecker as the DW embodiment of this
> > >Theorum ?
>
> > I suspect TP was mimicing computer attacks (denial of service attacks?)
> > but had to make the Woodpecker exploit
> > a low-tech system like clacks towers: natural resonances is plausible.
>
> I see a resemblance between the Woodpecker and Hofstadter's destructive=20
> record. However, I think that this is are both instances of the=20
> destructive input pattern, and I don't see PTerry's use of it having=20
> much to do with Hofstadter's relating a moderately common phenomenon to=20
> Goedel's theorem. I see what H is at, but I think of it more as metaphor=20
> than a strong relationship, and I see no sign that PTerry is following=20
> that metaphor.
I agree; while the record is used as an analogy to Goedel's Theorem, it
isn't very strong unless taken in the context of the rest of the book.
In particular the way in which it destroys its player, and in which it
is most similar to the Woodpecker - physical resonance - has no clear
parallel in Goedel's theory, which is a much more direct loopback.
> PTerry is just referring to the fact that systems can be=20
> susceptible to damage to pressures which, while apparently well within=20
> the range normally accepted, can cause disastrous damage.=20
Physical feedback is in fact a well-known destructive force, which has
broken down bridges and other constructions IRL.
Richard
Mrs Cake
[Goedel's Theorum snipped, thru no fault of its own]
This phenomenon reminds me of one called ~tries to recall~ "machine
gun"? From my motor control wiring days, there were setups, or
incorrect timing of events, which would send the system into a series
of abrupt state changes. Simplest example is a photocell / lightbulb
hookup, where the light coming on triggers the photocell to turn it
off, and the resultant darkness triggers the photocell to turn on the
light again.
These sorts of hookups in mechanical devices can be quite destructive,
and of course noisy too.
Mrs Cake
goggles, pliers, leather apron
Alec Cawley
holly....@gmail.com says...
> This phenomenon reminds me of one called ~tries to recall~ "machine
> gun"? From my motor control wiring days, there were setups, or
> incorrect timing of events, which would send the system into a series
> of abrupt state changes. Simplest example is a photocell / lightbulb
> hookup, where the light coming on triggers the photocell to turn it
> off, and the resultant darkness triggers the photocell to turn on the
> light again.
>
> These sorts of hookups in mechanical devices can be quite destructive,
> and of course noisy too.
>
> Mrs Cake
> goggles, pliers, leather apron
The one you describe is simple positive feedback which, unless well
damped, will always result in oscillation, often violent. The
"destruction pattern" is more subtle. An input which is superficially
totally normal has a results quite outside the normal range. This could
be a definition of great literature. Great literature uses the same
letters and the same words as ordinary literature, and yet has an effect
quite disproportionate to the number of letters/words read. Hundreds of
pages of an ordinary newspaper will have no effect, and yet a sonnet can
leave you in tears - or euphoria. In mechanical terms, the input is
indistinguishable - letters of the alphabet arranged into words in the
dictionary arranged into grammatically recognisable phrases. And yet the
output is fantastically different.
David Cameron Staples
<bpwak...@hotmail.com>) in hoc locus scripsit:
<spoiler space not relevant here>
> What is Goedel's Theorem? If I knew what the real one was, I
> might be able to help you spot the DW version, if it's already
> been and gone.
Gödel's theorum is that any mathematical system can have any two of these
properties: complete, consistent, without paradox.
That is, you can build a mathematical system which will never produce a
paradox, but it will be trivial and uninteresting.
Paradox? Like Russell's paradox: a set may contain other sets. A set may
be a member of itself: i.e., the set of all sets. We define Q to be the
set of all sets which do *not* contain themselves. Is Q a member of itself?
If no, then it is, which means it isn't, which means it must be...
Gödel's theorum proves that every complete mathematical system (call
a given system 'T') must have a statement which says "This statement can
not be proved true within system T". From within the system, if the
statement is true, then it is false and vice versa. From *outside* the
system, we can see that the statement is in fact true, but then you are in
a meta-system, which has its own analogous statement, and so on, all the
way down.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the
fiction section -- bash.org/?406373
Lesley Weston
Positive feedback is always destructive - which would come as a surprise to
all the feel-good gurus and elementary-school teachers of the world.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
ncw...@hotmail.com
True, except that both context and self-reference (particularly
indirect self-reference) are important themes in Hofstadter's book. I
think the link between the Woodpecker and Hofstadter's record _I cannot
be played on Record Player X_ is strong enough. They are both messages
designed to be played on a particular system that cause (as a
deliberate side-effect) vibrations that destroy that system. The
second link (from the record to Goedel's Theorum) was one that
Hofstadter had made explicit in his book.
> > PTerry is just referring to the fact that systems can be=20
> > susceptible to damage to pressures which, while apparently well within=20
> > the range normally accepted, can cause disastrous damage.=20
>
> Physical feedback is in fact a well-known destructive force, which has
> broken down bridges and other constructions IRL.
>
This is a bit more than just physical feedback. It is a deliberately
designed feedback that is a side-effect of the input.
Cheers,
Nigel.
healingline
that.... oh the irony!!
Cymatics is one of my likes, btw, making sand mandalas by properly
pronouncing OM, etc...
though at present I am a slasher.
I want another weather butterfly with fractal wings, soon.
graham
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:00:38 GMT, David Cameron Staples
<sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> wrote:
>Gödel's theorum is that any mathematical system can have any two of these
>properties: complete, consistent, without paradox.
Ah, similar to the Office Project theorem:
"On Time, On Budget or Works - Pick any two" :-)
Cheers,
Graham.
JB
Or NASA's "Better, Faster, Cheaper"
JB
>In article <1117574969....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>holly....@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>>This phenomenon reminds me of one called ~tries to recall~ "machine
>>gun"? From my motor control wiring days, there were setups, or
>>incorrect timing of events, which would send the system into a series
>>of abrupt state changes. Simplest example is a photocell / lightbulb
>>hookup, where the light coming on triggers the photocell to turn it
>>off, and the resultant darkness triggers the photocell to turn on the
>>light again.
>>
>>These sorts of hookups in mechanical devices can be quite destructive,
>>and of course noisy too.
>>
>>Mrs Cake
>>goggles, pliers, leather apron
>>
>>
>
>The one you describe is simple positive feedback which, unless well
>damped, will always result in oscillation, often violent.
>
Not to quibble, but it is a negative feedback system (and negative
feedbacks oscillate; postive feedback
systsems tend to grow- often exponentially).
>The "destruction pattern" is more subtle. An input which is superficially
>totally normal has a results quite outside the normal range.
>
Typically, these 'destructive patterns' resonate with the system and
that is what causes the failure... because
even a low amplitude drive of a system at its resonance frequency can
grow to ridiculous amplitudes. A
fine example is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge - which was being whipped by
the wind - which happened to be
gusting at the bridge's resonant frequency - and with each oscillation
the bridge swayed by greater amounts until
it fell apart.
>This could
>be a definition of great literature. Great literature uses the same
>letters and the same words as ordinary literature, and yet has an effect
>quite disproportionate to the number of letters/words read.
>
Methinks thou hast extended the analogy waay past its realm of validity.
Geoff Field
[snip]
> An interesting comparison - There have been computer programs which
> caused hardware damage by 'over stressing'
> components of the system (not always through natural resonances - just
> sometimes by making an amature jerk back and forth
In my current, semi-mazed state, I read "amature jerk" as "amateur jerk"
instead of the intended "armature jerk". I wasn't entirely sure whether
"jerk" was a noun or a verb here, either...
Geoff
--
Geoff Field
Professional Geek, Amateur Stage-Levelling Gauge
g c field at optusnet dot com dot (Australia's TLD)
JB
>JB wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>>An interesting comparison - There have been computer programs which
>>caused hardware damage by 'over stressing'
>>components of the system (not always through natural resonances - just
>>sometimes by making an amature jerk back and forth
>>
>>
>
>In my current, semi-mazed state, I read "amature jerk" as "amateur jerk"
>instead of the intended "armature jerk". I wasn't entirely sure whether
>"jerk" was a noun or a verb here, either...
>
>
>
Oops. I guess I made an unintended funny.
Richard Taylor
>
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
>>>PTerry is just referring to the fact that systems can be=20
>>>susceptible to damage to pressures which, while apparently well within=20
>>>the range normally accepted, can cause disastrous damage.=20
>>
>>Physical feedback is in fact a well-known destructive force, which has
>>broken down bridges and other constructions IRL.
>>
>
>
> This is a bit more than just physical feedback. It is a deliberately
> designed feedback that is a side-effect of the input.
>
That's fun semantics, but I don't see how it's "more than just physical
feedback". What you describe is one property of physical feedback, a
subset, rather than a superset.
--
"Speaking of valid debates, it seems to me that there's an inverse
power-to-cleavage ratio among Aes Sedai." - Frank van Schie (r.a.s.w.rj)
Richard Taylor
> Alec Cawley wrote:
>
>
>> The "destruction pattern" is more subtle. An input which is
>> superficially totally normal has a results quite outside the normal
>> range.
>>
>
> Typically, these 'destructive patterns' resonate with the system and
> that is what causes the failure... because even a low amplitude
> drive of a system at its resonance frequency can grow to ridiculous
> amplitudes. A fine example is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge - which was
> being whipped by the wind - which happened to be gusting at the
> bridge's resonant frequency - and with each oscillation the bridge
> swayed by greater amounts until it fell apart.
>
Truly a terrible, yet strangely compelling thing to watch. I urge all
posters in this debate to seek the footage.
Richard Taylor
It's equally true in that context, naturally.
Richard Taylor
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 03:41:49 -0700, ncwaite wrote:
>
>
>
> Two possible [A]s here:
They are NOT both annotations for this, and I truly hope that you did
not mean that they are both immediately valid in this context, since
they are both annotations valid to GP, but not both valid for this
particular item.
> 1/ The Great(internet) Worm, see
> <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Great-Worm.html>
Partially valid. The Great Worm caused no physical damage, and nor can
any computer virus/worm/trojan/backdoor, despite what the scare-mongers
might like you to believe.
> 2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>
GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely inappropriate for
Pratchett to use the name in this context, since the Smoking GNU,
whatever their intentions, are no better than terrorists.
jester
<sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
<snip>>
>> 1/ The Great(internet) Worm, see
>> <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Great-Worm.html>
>
>Partially valid. The Great Worm caused no physical damage, and nor can
>any computer virus/worm/trojan/backdoor, despite what the scare-mongers
>might like you to believe.
Well, apart from the ones that were able to trash the BIOS on certain
motherboards. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to write one
that'd wind the drive heads into the end stops or past (although modern
drives ought to catch that).
>
>
>> 2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>
>
>GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely inappropriate for
>Pratchett to use the name in this context, since the Smoking GNU,
>whatever their intentions, are no better than terrorists.
Now there's a word that's thrown around far too easily these days. What
particular terror were they inflicting on anybody?
OTOH, GNU is reasonably relevant to a group of hackers trying to create a
parallel system to something corporate.
OTOOH, gnu is a very common spelling of gun on usenet.
--
Andy Brown
Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-- Albert Einstein
William Black
"Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:d7vl4e$l1e$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Lesley Weston wrote:
> > Positive feedback is always destructive - which would come as a surprise
to
> > all the feel-good gurus and elementary-school teachers of the world.
> >
>
> It's equally true in that context, naturally.
And untrue in electronics where 'positive feedback' is used in various types
of oscillators
And who remembers the original 'Woodpecker'?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Brian Wakeling
Richard Taylor uttered thus:
> Ron Wellsted wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 03:41:49 -0700, ncwaite wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Two possible [A]s here:
>
> They are NOT both annotations for this, and I truly hope
> that you did not mean that they are both immediately valid
> in this context, since they are both annotations valid to
> GP, but not both valid for this particular item.
>
>> 1/ The Great(internet) Worm, see
>> <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Great-Worm.html>
>
> Partially valid. The Great Worm caused no physical damage,
> and nor can any computer virus/worm/trojan/backdoor,
> despite what the scare-mongers might like you to believe.
>
>
>> 2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>
>
> GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
> inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
> context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
> are no better than terrorists.
"One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"I always take blushing for a sign of guilt, or of ill
breeding."
- William Congreve
Doug Urquhart
wrote:
>And who remembers the original 'Woodpecker'?
This little chap, you mean?
http://www.qsl.net/n1irz/woodpeck.html
Apparently he has a recent relative on UHF.
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december/uhf_woodpecker.htm
And the question is..... is this an annotation?
Regards
Doug Urquhart
Richard Taylor
> "Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:d7vl4e$l1e$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>
>>>Positive feedback is always destructive - which would come as a surprise
>
> to
>
>>>all the feel-good gurus and elementary-school teachers of the world.
>>>
>>
>>It's equally true in that context, naturally.
>
>
> And untrue in electronics where 'positive feedback' is used in various types
> of oscillators
>
I was making a sociological point, rather than an electronics one.
Richard Taylor
> In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
> Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>>>2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>>
>>GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
>>inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
>>context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
>>are no better than terrorists.
>
>
> "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
> Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
> is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs. You can keep
'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
as anything but despicable.
David Cameron Staples
hoc locus scripsit:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:56:41 +0100, Richard Taylor
> <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
> <snip>>
>>> 1/ The Great(internet) Worm, see
>>> <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Great-Worm.html>
>>
>>Partially valid. The Great Worm caused no physical damage, and nor can
>>any computer virus/worm/trojan/backdoor, despite what the scare-mongers
>>might like you to believe.
>
> Well, apart from the ones that were able to trash the BIOS on certain
> motherboards. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to write one
> that'd wind the drive heads into the end stops or past (although modern
> drives ought to catch that).
>
IDE HDDs had (its been a *long* time since I've delved this deep) a
setting for 'head rise time'. What would happen is that the tracks were
actually slight grooves. The read/write head would have to lift to safe
height, move to the right track, and then drop into the groove to read the
data. It was once perfectly possible to change the rise and drop times to
tune the HDD performance. Almost no-one did, because they were set right
at the factory. But still... If you set the 'head rise' time to 0, then
the heads would not rise at all, but would just drag across the furrows,
doing *amazing* amounts of damage to the head and disk surface alike. This
was known as 'farming'. I *really* hope it isn't possible any more.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
i beat the internet. the end guy is hard. -- bash.org/?4278
kuy...@wizard.net
> In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
> Richard Taylor uttered thus:
> > GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
> > inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
> > context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
> > are no better than terrorists.
>
> "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
> Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
> is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
There's a lot of truth to that statement, but I think there is a clear
distinction between terrorist and non-terrorist methods of using
violence for political purposes. The terrorist targets civilians with
the intent to cause terror, so as to weaken the enemy's will to fight.
The non-terrorist targets military and industrial targets with the
intent of reducing the enemy's ability to fight, and tries to avoid
civilian casualties. There's a tricky middle ground: I'd say that
someone who targets military sites, but sees civilian casualties as a
added benefit, is almost as much of a terrorist as someone who
deliberately targets civilians. However, the extreme cases are easily
identified, unless you have a political motive for wanting to ignore
the terrorist activities of a group you support.
Richard Taylor
Despite what you guys say, I half believe that such stories are all
urban legends. You show me the proof, or I will have a hard time buying
it. Any sane system would have safety parameters built in so that you
couldn't tune the settings out of tolerance. I bet that this is one of
those things that's true in theory, but in practice, the setting can't
be tuned to the level required to cause damage.
Hell, I have old hard-drives by the tonne, if you want to help me set up
an experiment.
David Cameron Staples
<sol...@fastmail.fm>) in hoc locus scripsit:
> Despite what you guys say, I half believe that such stories are all
> urban legends. You show me the proof, or I will have a hard time buying
> it. Any sane system would have safety parameters built in so that you
> couldn't tune the settings out of tolerance. I bet that this is one of
> those things that's true in theory, but in practice, the setting can't
> be tuned to the level required to cause damage.
>
> Hell, I have old hard-drives by the tonne, if you want to help me set up
> an experiment.
Now you've done it. (google, google)
INT 1E is not an executable interrupt, but is a pointer to a table of
values used by the Diskette read/write BIOS functions.
Offset 00 contains 1 byte with the low nibble containing the head step
rate, and the high nibble the head unload time, both in milliseconds.
Offset 01 contains the DMA flag in bit 0 and the head load time, where the
(number * 2)+1 is the time in milliseconds.
So, if, for the sake of argument, you compile and run
&INT_1E[0] &= 0x0f; &INT_1E[1] &= 0x01; ...
I have better info at home. Give it a shot. It should work better (!) on
older drives, but you probably don't have a need for those old 20Mb disks
anyway.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
<h|tler> HOW THE **** CAN YOU TELL THAT I'M 13 BY LOOKING AT WHAT
I'M WRITEING????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-- bash.org/?14207
JB
>"Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:d7vl4e$l1e$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
>>Lesley Weston wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>Positive feedback is always destructive - which would come as a surprise
>>>
>>>
>to
>
>
>>>all the feel-good gurus and elementary-school teachers of the world.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It's equally true in that context, naturally.
>>
>>
>
>And untrue in electronics where 'positive feedback' is used in various types
>of oscillators
>
>
I thought negative feedback produced oscillators. With an Op-Amp, if
you tie the out into the negative in, and bias
it, you get an oscillator. I cannot imagine how positive feedback
would cause anything other than runaway growth.
>And who remembers the original 'Woodpecker'?
>
>
I don't -- Please enlighten me. (I always enjoy your posts - I wonder
if TP does, too)
Rhiannon Sands
> Brian Wakeling wrote:
> > In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
> > Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>
> >>>2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
> >>>
> >>GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
> >>inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
> >>context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
> >>are no better than terrorists.
> >
> >
> > "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
> > Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
> > is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
>
> To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
> terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs. You can keep
> 'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
> and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
> as anything but despicable.
I wonder where that leaves Luke Skywalker then?
--
Rhiannon_S
I'm not an idiot, I'm just communing with my Pineal gland!
ncw...@hotmail.com
Richard Taylor wrote:
> ncw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Richard Bos wrote:
> >
> >>>PTerry is just referring to the fact that systems can be=20
> >>>susceptible to damage to pressures which, while apparently well within=20
> >>>the range normally accepted, can cause disastrous damage.=20
> >>
> >>Physical feedback is in fact a well-known destructive force, which has
> >>broken down bridges and other constructions IRL.
> >>
> >
> >
> > This is a bit more than just physical feedback. It is a deliberately
> > designed feedback that is a side-effect of the input.
> >
>
> That's fun semantics, but I don't see how it's "more than just physical
> feedback". What you describe is one property of physical feedback, a
> subset, rather than a superset.
>
We're dealing with works of fiction here - you have to look beyond the
the physical process to the motivations of the characters. As I said
in my next sentence, in both the Clacks and the Record Player, the
possiblity of destructive physical feedback is present. But more than
that, there are characters in the story who have deliberately sought
out the required frequencies and created messages that incorporate them
so as to deliberately damage the system carrying that message.
To take a recent example - the Millenium Bridge in London also suffered
the effects of feedback because it had a resonent frequency the same as
the natural walking pace of the people who were crossing it. This is a
different situation to the Woodpecker, because there was no deliberate
intent to damage the bridge. The equivalent to the Woodpecker would be
another bridge with a different resonent frequency that was destroyed
by a choreographer staging a dance routine on it where the dance steps
were deliberately designed to hit that resonent frequency.
Cheers,
Nigel.
mark
As a terrorist, of course.
(Right-wingers seem to hate this interpretation, as --- for the
propagandally inclined --- it paints the Rebels as the evil al Qaeda
and the Empire as the great US of A. Which only goes to show that, for
all the left's best efforts, the battle over the prestigious award for
Most Humourless Clique is far from over.)
--
"I don't do anything, not one single thing. I used to
bite my nails, but I don't even do that any more."
(attributed to Dorothy Parker)
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] student [dot] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
kuy...@wizard.net
> It's the end of the world as we know it, and Rhiannon Sands feels...
> > "Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > news:d7vvde$dbq$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
> > > terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs. You can keep
> > > 'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
> > > and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
> > > as anything but despicable.
> >
> > I wonder where that leaves Luke Skywalker then?
>
> As a terrorist, of course.
>
>
> (Right-wingers seem to hate this interpretation, as --- for the
> propagandally inclined --- it paints the Rebels as the evil al Qaeda
> and the Empire as the great US of A. Which only goes to show that, for
> all the left's best efforts, the battle over the prestigious award for
> Most Humourless Clique is far from over.)
Well, that definition brands all warfare as terrorism, since virtually
everything you have to destroy in order to defeat a foreign country in
war is the property of that country.
A definition of "terrorism" that makes no reference to terror is pretty
odd.
There are a few people who are opposed to warfare in all it's forms,
but most people admit that warfare can sometimes be justified, at least
in self-defence. Even many pacifists would have no objection to the
destruction of enemy property (as opposed to the destruction of enemy
soldiers or civilians). I can't imagine that there's anyone out there
who accepts warfare as sometimes a legitimate activity, who would
disapprove of an act of war just because it destroys property that
belongs to the enemy. A definition of "terrorism" that includes acts
that even some pacifists could approve of, doesn't seem like a
reasonable definition to me.
jester
<sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
<chop>
>Despite what you guys say, I half believe that such stories are all
>urban legends. You show me the proof, or I will have a hard time buying
>it.
Well, I can't actually prove it now, but I nearly wrecked the floppy drive
on an ST at uni on the systems programming course when I tried to set the
head to track FF instead of 7F. The horrible grinding sound was enough of
a clue that things were not good. However, no damage on that system
due to it resetting properly; not because it was impossible to get the
hardware trying to go to bad places.
>Any sane system would have safety parameters built in so that you
>couldn't tune the settings out of tolerance. I bet that this is one of
>those things that's true in theory, but in practice, the setting can't
>be tuned to the level required to cause damage.
Well, yes, you'd hope so these days.
We're getting a bit off-topic, I think.
--
Andy Brown
If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing
anything very innovative. - Woody Allen
Peter Ellis
> mark wrote:
>> It's the end of the world as we know it, and Rhiannon Sands feels...
> ...
>>>> To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
>>>> terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs.
>>>
>>
>> As a terrorist, of course.
>
> everything you have to destroy in order to defeat a foreign country in
> war is the property of that country.
It also encompasses breaking and entering, various consequences of
domestic rows, and toddlers throwing things. Only yesterday the cat was
busy comitting terrorism on our footstool. Since the definition given
above doesn't mention premeditation, it's also apparently a terrorist
offence for me to accidentally break a glass when visiting a friend.
Guess the clumsy had better watch out.
In fact, it's worse than that - he didn't even allow an exemption for
consent. Guess all those hairdressers had better stop committing
terrorist acts on my head. And God help anyone who offers to light
someone's cigarette for them.
Oops, I appear to have destroyed his credibility. It's the slammer for
me, I fear, and don't stint on the thumbscrews.
Peter
Baba Yaga Boney Legs
>A definition of "terrorism" that includes acts
>that even some pacifists could approve of, doesn't seem like a
>reasonable definition to me.
Remember the women who damaged a Trident support vessel in Loch
Something? The courts decided that it was legal action.
Dratted if I can bring this back on topic, though.
Baba Yaga
--
Positive feedback is always destructive - which would come as a
surprise to all the feel-good gurus and elementary-school teachers of
the world.
- Lesley Weston
Tom Shannon
jester wrote:
> OTOH, GNU is reasonably relevant to a group of hackers trying to create a
> parallel system to something corporate.
IMO you are correct, sir. In fact, it's not just reasonalbly relevant,
its incredibly clever. Having dealt with a few people who participate
in GNU software projects like Emacs, I can tell you that many of them
see corporations, particularly Microsoft, as an enemy that they are
fighting. The GNU slogan "Free as in Freedom" isn't just, "Hey, lets
put some free software out there". For many of them, its a declaration
of war based on principal. The parallels are outstanding.
Tom S.
mark
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
> > mark wrote:
> >> It's the end of the world as we know it, and Rhiannon Sands feels...
> >>> "Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > ...
> >>>> To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
> >>>> terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder where that leaves Luke Skywalker then?
> >>
> >> As a terrorist, of course.
> >
> > Well, that definition brands all warfare as terrorism, since virtually
> > everything you have to destroy in order to defeat a foreign country in
> > war is the property of that country.
>
> It also encompasses breaking and entering, various consequences of
> domestic rows, and toddlers throwing things. Only yesterday the cat was
> busy comitting terrorism on our footstool. Since the definition given
> above doesn't mention premeditation, it's also apparently a terrorist
> offence for me to accidentally break a glass when visiting a friend.
> Guess the clumsy had better watch out.
I'm all embarrassed now. I should've read Richard's post more closely
before attempting to be a smartarse (rather than, as it now appears, a
mere ass).
Lesley Weston
sol...@fastmail.fm wrote on 05/06/2005 3:47 PM:
> Brian Wakeling wrote:
>> In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
>> Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>
>>>> 2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>>>
>>> GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
>>> inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
>>> context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
>>> are no better than terrorists.
>>
>>
>> "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
>> Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
>> is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
>
> To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
> terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs. You can keep
> 'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
> and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
> as anything but despicable.
But terrorists *kill* civilians, they don't just inconvenience them. I'd say
that there's a huge difference between terrorism and damaging property,
though neither is to be encouraged. As to freedom fighters, yes I agree they
are terrorists whatever they're called.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
sol...@fastmail.fm wrote on 05/06/2005 3:45 PM:
> William Black wrote:
>> "Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>> news:d7vl4e$l1e$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Positive feedback is always destructive - which would come as a surprise
>>
>> to
>>
>>>> all the feel-good gurus and elementary-school teachers of the world.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's equally true in that context, naturally.
>>
>>
>> And untrue in electronics where 'positive feedback' is used in various types
>> of oscillators
>>
>
> I was making a sociological point, rather than an electronics one.
Actually, I was making a joke.
JB
Or any warrior... at the very least trying to poke holes through
another solder's armor to kill him
(also, when soldiers use psychological warfare to break the enemy's morale).
The problem is the word 'terrorism' has gone the way of words like
'Nazi' ... they become the embodiment of
evil and are used indiscriminantly for anything which is evil (ie. a
usenet posters who does follow the rules becomes
a terrorist, a moderator who enforces the rules is a Nazi).
BTW: during WWII, the efforts of bombing civilian targets were called
"terror bombing" (I know, I run a great risk
bringing up the blitz on a primarily UK group ;) - as we can all see,
blowing up the world trade center was as effective
as the London Blitz at breaking the enemy's morale.
Well, back to Discworld ... where we have the Patrician to sort these
things out!
JB
>To take a recent example - the Millenium Bridge in London also suffered
>the effects of feedback because it had a resonent frequency the same as
>the natural walking pace of the people who were crossing it.
>
This sounds fishy (I'm not calling you a liar, but I am skeptical). In
the first place people of different
sizes and physical 'vitality' have grossly different gates of walking.
In the second place, IF they have
the same period of stepping (a big IF) unless these crowds were walking
in cadence the random
excitations (at random phases) would largely cancel each other out.
I recall working out some of the details with other scientists (and at
least one civil engineer) about the
old story about soldiers breaking cadence as they walk across a bridge.
It was established that (although
the risk was always minimal - overloading the bridge being a much bigger
concern) breaking candence
virtually removed the threat of exciting a resonant frequency of the bridge.
>This is a
>different situation to the Woodpecker, because there was no deliberate
>intent to damage the bridge. The equivalent to the Woodpecker would be
>another bridge with a different resonent frequency that was destroyed
>by a choreographer staging a dance routine on it where the dance steps
>were deliberately designed to hit that resonent frequency.
>
>
Or troops marching across ... but yours paints a better visual: Kick
and turn and Kick and SPLASH!
Peter Ellis
> ncw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> To take a recent example - the Millenium Bridge in London also suffered
>> the effects of feedback because it had a resonent frequency the same as
>> the natural walking pace of the people who were crossing it.
>
> This sounds fishy (I'm not calling you a liar, but I am skeptical). In the
> first place people of different
> sizes and physical 'vitality' have grossly different gates of walking.
Fishy or not, it happened. The problem was that the oscillation was a
side-to-side one rather than an up-and-down one due to the innovative
bridge design.
As the bridge began to sway, this had the effect of causing the walkers to
"lurch" and naturally fall into step with the swaying of the bridge, thus
amplifying an initially small perturbation.
If you like, the resonance acted on the crowd as well as the bridge,
causing them to adopt the same period and phase of step. The video
footage is quite striking.
Peter
JB
Wow. I'd like to see that. I guess if both systems are coupling then
the bridge can force people to walk in cadence... OTOH: did they
know that it was the beating of feet which drove the oscillations?
Leo Breebaart
> Peter Ellis wrote:
>
> >>> To take a recent example - the Millenium Bridge in London
> >>> also suffered the effects of feedback because it had a
> >>> resonent frequency the same as the natural walking pace of
> >>> the people who were crossing it.
>
[...]
> > As the bridge began to sway, this had the effect of causing the
> > walkers to "lurch" and naturally fall into step with the swaying of
> > the bridge, thus amplifying an initially small perturbation.
[...]
>
> Wow. I'd like to see that. I guess if both systems are coupling then
> the bridge can force people to walk in cadence... OTOH: did they
> know that it was the beating of feet which drove the oscillations?
This BBC site has footage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2000/millennium_bridge/default.stm
I can't play this file on my own system, so I don't know if it's
any good, but if it isn't then I'm sure that three minutes spent
with Google can lead you to a different clip that is.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
William Black
"Doug Urquhart" <dou...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42a3782c....@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
The link doesn't work, but if you're referring to what was assumed by many
to be an OTH radar in the late Soviet Union then you're right.
It was in the Ukraine and went off the air at the same time as Chernobyl
blew up...
I assume Mr Pratchett was as pissed off as anyone in the UK when their
radiogram started making knocking sounds in the middle of The Archers...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
William Black
"JB" <Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu> wrote in message
news:d80ssn$bjb$2...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> William Black wrote:
> >And untrue in electronics where 'positive feedback' is used in various
types
> >of oscillators
> >
> >
> I thought negative feedback produced oscillators. With an Op-Amp, if
> you tie the out into the negative in, and bias
> it, you get an oscillator. I cannot imagine how positive feedback
> would cause anything other than runaway growth.
Because you saturate the input and the thing resonates at its resonant
frequency.
You adjust the resonant frequency by messing with the components between the
output and the input.
Don't forget your Op-Amp (like all amplifiers) inverts its input through 180
degrees.
William Black
"Tom Shannon" <tsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118065235.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Emacs (assuming you mean the editor) predates M$.
Tom Shannon
William Black wrote:
> "Tom Shannon" <tsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118065235.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > IMO you are correct, sir. In fact, it's not just reasonalbly relevant,
> > its incredibly clever. Having dealt with a few people who participate
> > in GNU software projects like Emacs, I can tell you that many of them
> > see corporations, particularly Microsoft, as an enemy that they are
> > fighting. The GNU slogan "Free as in Freedom" isn't just, "Hey, lets
> > put some free software out there". For many of them, its a declaration
> > of war based on principal. The parallels are outstanding.
>
> Emacs (assuming you mean the editor) predates M$.
And the GNU foundation, for that matter. Not entirely sure when the
relationship started or what the history was before that but I know its
a pretty old program. When I was using Linux more, I used to live in
Emacs. Now, sadly, its become just too difficult to stay away from the
MS programs and OS. I got stuck converting a LaTeX document into a
Word document for journal submission one too many times. Though I keep
the Windows version around, I've given up using it except when
programming or editting plain text.
Tom S.
Richard Bos
> Brian Wakeling wrote:
> > In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
> > Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>
> >>>2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
> >>>
> >>GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
> >>inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
> >>context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
> >>are no better than terrorists.
> >
> > "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
> > Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
> > is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
>
> To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
> terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs. You can keep
> 'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
> and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
> as anything but despicable.
The US government would disagree, considering themselves to be fighting
for freedom as they do.
In any case, terrorism isn't merely any kind of destruction. A terrorist
wants - hence the name - to cause terror by his actions, frighten the
population badly enough for them to pressure the government into giving
in to the terrorist. That's why the Smoking GNU aren't terrorists,
they're saboteurs.
Richard
Richard Bos
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
> > mark wrote:
> >> It's the end of the world as we know it, and Rhiannon Sands feels...
> >>> "Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > ...
> >>>> To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
> >>>> terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder where that leaves Luke Skywalker then?
> >>
> >> As a terrorist, of course.
> >
> > Well, that definition brands all warfare as terrorism, since virtually
> > everything you have to destroy in order to defeat a foreign country in
> > war is the property of that country.
>
> It also encompasses breaking and entering,
Tony Blair would probably agree.
I don't think Vetinari will, though.
Richard
Richard Bos
> Ron Wellsted wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 03:41:49 -0700, ncwaite wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >
> > Two possible [A]s here:
>
> They are NOT both annotations for this, and I truly hope that you did
> not mean that they are both immediately valid in this context, since
> they are both annotations valid to GP, but not both valid for this
> particular item.
>
> > 1/ The Great(internet) Worm, see
> > <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Great-Worm.html>
>
> Partially valid. The Great Worm caused no physical damage, and nor can
> any computer virus/worm/trojan/backdoor, despite what the scare-mongers
> might like you to believe.
Not true. While modern PCs are well protected against this, there have
certainly been architectures for which it was, for example, possible to
cause the monitor to overload.
> > 2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>
> GNU is not a destructive weapon,
This is debatable.
Richard
William Black
> > Emacs (assuming you mean the editor) predates M$.
>
> And the GNU foundation, for that matter. Not entirely sure when the
> relationship started or what the history was before that but I know its
> a pretty old program.
Emacs was an old editor when I did a UNIX course in about 1983.
Mind you, it was better than Ed :-)
Brian Wakeling
Richard Bos uttered thus:
> Richard Taylor <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Brian Wakeling wrote:
>>> In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
>>> Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>>
>>>>> 2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>>>>
>>>> GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
>>>> inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
>>>> context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their
>>>> intentions, are no better than terrorists.
>>>
>>> "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
>>> Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking
>>> of is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
>>
>> To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession
>> of another is terrorism in my book, never mind the damn
>> rights or wrongs. You can keep 'em. There's too much
>> wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists and
>> freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either
>> of them as anything but despicable.
So, the French Resistance of the Second World War were
terrorists, were they? I think virtually everybody will
disagree with you there.
> The US government would disagree, considering themselves to
> be fighting for freedom as they do.
> In any case, terrorism isn't merely any kind of
> destruction. A terrorist wants - hence the name - to cause
> terror by his actions, frighten the population badly enough
> for them to pressure the government into giving in to the
> terrorist. That's why the Smoking GNU aren't terrorists,
> they're saboteurs.
Or guerillas - from the Spanish for "little war". They don't
have the men, the money, the organisation, or the weapons to
fight the enemy one-on-one in a traditional way, so instead
they attack the enemy where they are weakest, and melt away
into the background.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"Yan, tan, tethra, huthuthut!"
William Black
"Brian Wakeling" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3gjqbuF...@individual.net...
> So, the French Resistance of the Second World War were
> terrorists, were they? I think virtually everybody will
> disagree with you there.
Well it is how the Nazi authorities of the time described them.
Of course after the war the various international laws were changed to stop
such people being shot or incarcerated without trial.
Unfortunately the changes in international law don't seem to have stopped
the US government locking people up without trial.
One man's terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter.
Unfortunately this time it seems that, in one case, one man's wedding guest
is the other man's terrorist...
Orjan Westin
>
> Unfortunately this time it seems that, in one case, one man's wedding
> guest is the other man's terrorist...
Or, as the case might be, the third man's off-topic poster.
Since this is an issue that is somewhat contentious, and has no bearing on
the books by Pratchett, I'd personally be happier if it was dropped or taken
to e-mail.
Of course, should you want to discuss the guerilla campaign in MR, that's
entirely relevant and welcome.
Orjan
--
Get your Tale paperback or CD here:
http://tale.cunobaros.com
Or just read it there, if you don't want the illustrations
Richard Bos
> In a speech called 42a49da6...@news.xs4all.nl,
> Richard Bos uttered thus:
> > In any case, terrorism isn't merely any kind of
> > destruction. A terrorist wants - hence the name - to cause
> > terror by his actions, frighten the population badly enough
> > for them to pressure the government into giving in to the
> > terrorist. That's why the Smoking GNU aren't terrorists,
> > they're saboteurs.
>
> Or guerillas - from the Spanish for "little war". They don't
> have the men, the money, the organisation, or the weapons to
> fight the enemy one-on-one in a traditional way, so instead
> they attack the enemy where they are weakest, and melt away
> into the background.
No; guerillas wage a real war, in which people are killed. They wage it
with different means, but it's still a war. The Smoking GNU aren't after
the lives of the Trunk Company, but after the machinery.
Richard
mark
[Woodpecker - http://www.qsl.net/n1irz/woodpeck.html]
> The link doesn't work, but if you're referring to what was assumed by many
> to be an OTH radar in the late Soviet Union then you're right.
It worked for me. An article in the /Miami Herald/ about brave ham
radio operators fighting Soviet RADAR so that they don't have to listen
to that darned "woodpecker" sound.
> It was in the Ukraine and went off the air at the same time as Chernobyl
> blew up...
Heh. Got a cite?
<snip />
kuy...@wizard.net
...
> though neither is to be encouraged. As to freedom fighters, yes I agree they
> are terrorists whatever they're called.
All freedom fighters? No matter how they fight for freedom? Even if
they obey all applicable international laws with respect to the conduct
of warfare?
There are people who've been labelled "freedom fighters" who were
actually terrorists, but that's a long way from saying that all freedom
fighters are terrorists.
JB
>One man's terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter.
>
>
>
Let's see..
crime fighters fight crime
fire fighters fight fire
What do freedom fighters fight?
Fat Harris
<m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> It's the end of the world as we know it, and William Black feels...
> [Woodpecker - http://www.qsl.net/n1irz/woodpeck.html]
>> The link doesn't work, but if you're referring to what was assumed by
>> many
>> to be an OTH radar in the late Soviet Union then you're right.
>
> It worked for me. An article in the /Miami Herald/ about brave ham
> radio operators fighting Soviet RADAR so that they don't have to listen
> to that darned "woodpecker" sound.
>
>> It was in the Ukraine and went off the air at the same time as Chernobyl
>> blew up...
>
> Heh. Got a cite?
>
>
> <snip />
>
or http://tinyurl.com/bh6jf if it doesn't work...
--
FH
Richard Taylor
> In Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:18:07 +0100, Richard Taylor (Richard Taylor
> <sol...@fastmail.fm>) in hoc locus scripsit:
>
>
>>Despite what you guys say, I half believe that such stories are all
>>urban legends. You show me the proof, or I will have a hard time buying
>>it. Any sane system would have safety parameters built in so that you
>>couldn't tune the settings out of tolerance. I bet that this is one of
>>those things that's true in theory, but in practice, the setting can't
>>be tuned to the level required to cause damage.
>>
>>Hell, I have old hard-drives by the tonne, if you want to help me set up
>>an experiment.
>
>
> Now you've done it. (google, google)
>
> INT 1E is not an executable interrupt, but is a pointer to a table of
> values used by the Diskette read/write BIOS functions.
> Offset 00 contains 1 byte with the low nibble containing the head step
> rate, and the high nibble the head unload time, both in milliseconds.
> Offset 01 contains the DMA flag in bit 0 and the head load time, where the
> (number * 2)+1 is the time in milliseconds.
>
> So, if, for the sake of argument, you compile and run
> &INT_1E[0] &= 0x0f; &INT_1E[1] &= 0x01; ...
>
> I have better info at home. Give it a shot. It should work better (!) on
> older drives, but you probably don't have a need for those old 20Mb disks
> anyway.
>
I'll give it a try, since you've aroused my curiosity. I have a handfull
of old IDE drives to play with, most of which, as you suggest, are too
tiny to be of any use
.
--
"Speaking of valid debates, it seems to me that there's an inverse
power-to-cleavage ratio among Aes Sedai." - Frank van Schie (r.a.s.w.rj)
Richard Taylor
> "Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:d7vvde$dbq$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>
>>>In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
>>>Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>>
>>>>>2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>>>>
>>>>GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
>>>>inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
>>>>context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
>>>>are no better than terrorists.
>>>
>>>
>>>"One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
>>>Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
>>>is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
>>
>>To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
>>terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs. You can keep
>>'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
>>and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
>>as anything but despicable.
>
>
As a fictional character in a simplistic story, written by a pathetic
hack without a real social context.
Richard Taylor
> in article d7vvai$dbq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk, Richard Taylor at
> sol...@fastmail.fm wrote on 05/06/2005 3:45 PM:
>
>
>>William Black wrote:
>>
>>>"Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>news:d7vl4e$l1e$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Positive feedback is always destructive - which would come as a surprise
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>all the feel-good gurus and elementary-school teachers of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's equally true in that context, naturally.
>>>
>>>
>>>And untrue in electronics where 'positive feedback' is used in various types
>>>of oscillators
>>>
>>
>>I was making a sociological point, rather than an electronics one.
>
>
> Actually, I was making a joke.
>
Many a true word has been spoken in jest. Constant positive feedback
leads to children growing up in the belief that they can do no wrong.
This leads to all sorts of social problems. I'm very much of the school
of thought that one should criticise as frequently - but no more - than
one praises a child.
Richard Taylor
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
>
>>mark wrote:
>>
>>>It's the end of the world as we know it, and Rhiannon Sands feels...
>>>
>>>>"Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>>>terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, that definition brands all warfare as terrorism, since virtually
>>everything you have to destroy in order to defeat a foreign country in
>>war is the property of that country.
>
>
> domestic rows, and toddlers throwing things. Only yesterday the cat was
> busy comitting terrorism on our footstool. Since the definition given
> above doesn't mention premeditation, it's also apparently a terrorist
> offence for me to accidentally break a glass when visiting a friend.
> Guess the clumsy had better watch out.
Yeah, alright. I was lazy in my definition. The smoking GNU are still
terrorists though, despite your pointing out the flaws in my post. Sorry
you prefer not to see that, but hey, I didn't write the book, I only
read it.
> Oops, I appear to have destroyed his credibility. It's the slammer for
> me, I fear, and don't stint on the thumbscrews.
That assumes I have any credibility. Good luck finding it.
Richard Taylor
> in article d7vvde$dbq$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk, Richard Taylor at
> sol...@fastmail.fm wrote on 05/06/2005 3:47 PM:
>
>
>>Brian Wakeling wrote:
>>
>>>In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
>>>Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>>
>>>>>2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>>>>
>>>>GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
>>>>inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
>>>>context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
>>>>are no better than terrorists.
>>>
>>>
>>>"One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
>>>Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
>>>is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
>>
>>'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
>>and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
>>as anything but despicable.
>
>
> that there's a huge difference between terrorism and damaging property,
> though neither is to be encouraged. As to freedom fighters, yes I agree they
> are terrorists whatever they're called.
It was a lazy post on my part, but the Smokeing GNU will still be
terrorists in my view, since they are trying to destroy that which
supports the only long-range communications system that is available.
Richard Taylor
> In a speech called 42a49da6...@news.xs4all.nl,
> Richard Bos uttered thus:
>
>>Richard Taylor <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brian Wakeling wrote:
>>>
>>>>In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
>>>>Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>>>
>>>>>>2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
>>>>>inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
>>>>>context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their
>>>>>intentions, are no better than terrorists.
>>>>
>>>>"One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
>>>>Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking
>>>>of is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
>>>
>>>To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession
>>>of another is terrorism in my book, never mind the damn
>>>rights or wrongs. You can keep 'em. There's too much
>>>wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists and
>>>freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either
>>>of them as anything but despicable.
>
>
> So, the French Resistance of the Second World War were
> terrorists, were they? I think virtually everybody will
> disagree with you there.
Straw man.
>>The US government would disagree, considering themselves to
>>be fighting for freedom as they do.
>>In any case, terrorism isn't merely any kind of
>>destruction. A terrorist wants - hence the name - to cause
>>terror by his actions, frighten the population badly enough
>>for them to pressure the government into giving in to the
>>terrorist. That's why the Smoking GNU aren't terrorists,
>>they're saboteurs.
>
>
> Or guerillas - from the Spanish for "little war". They don't
> have the men, the money, the organisation, or the weapons to
> fight the enemy one-on-one in a traditional way, so instead
> they attack the enemy where they are weakest, and melt away
> into the background.
Yep. Still evildoers. Sorry.
Richard Taylor
Why do you want to believe that? Would it upset you terribly if they
were terrorists? They are criminals, and wrongdoers, no matter what you
call them.
Richard Taylor
Please.
kuy...@wizard.net
> Rhiannon Sands wrote:
> > "Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > news:d7vvde$dbq$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
> >>terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs. You can keep
> >>'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
> >>and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
> >>as anything but despicable.
> >
> >
> > I wonder where that leaves Luke Skywalker then?
>
> As a fictional character in a simplistic story, written by a pathetic
> hack without a real social context.
His fictional nature, the simplicity of the story, your judgement that
the author is pathetic, and the lack of social content are all
irrelevant to the reason he was mentioned.
Luke Skywalker helped destroy an enormously valuable piece of property
which was legally the possession of another, for reasons that were far
more than adequate to justify doing so. By your definition, that makes
him a terrorist, despite the fact that the only people who felt terror
as a direct result of that act were military personell, who have always
been considered legitimate targets in warfare.
Terrorism has nothing to do with the destruction of property, and
everything to do with the deliberate infliction of terror. Destruction
of property often happens as a result of terrorist actions, but that's
not what qualifies them as terrorist actions. It's quite feasible,
though rather uncommon, to inflict terror without destroying any
property whatsoever.
kuy...@wizard.net
...
> Yeah, alright. I was lazy in my definition. The smoking GNU are still
> terrorists though, despite your pointing out the flaws in my post. Sorry
> you prefer not to see that, but hey, I didn't write the book, I only
> read it.
OK - what acts of terror did they commit? Who felt the terror that they
inflicted? I suppose that there were some people who felt a bit of
terror over the fact that they were going to lose a great deal of
money, but if you're going to include that kind of terror, then
ordinary stock market activity constitutes terrorism as well.
kuy...@wizard.net
> Richard Bos wrote:
...
> > In any case, terrorism isn't merely any kind of destruction. A terrorist
> > wants - hence the name - to cause terror by his actions, frighten the
> > population badly enough for them to pressure the government into giving
> > in to the terrorist. That's why the Smoking GNU aren't terrorists,
> > they're saboteurs.
>
> Why do you want to believe that? Would it upset you terribly if they
> were terrorists? They are criminals, and wrongdoers, no matter what you
> call them.
Terrorists are those who commit particularly despicable crimes, crimes
that the smoking GNU are not guilty of. Therefore, it does upset me (to
the very mild degree that's appropriate when hearing fictional
characters being slandered) to hear them called terrorists.
ncw...@hotmail.com
Baba Yaga Boney Legs wrote:
> kuy...@wizard.net wrote, in alt.books.pratchett:
>
> >A definition of "terrorism" that includes acts
> >that even some pacifists could approve of, doesn't seem like a
> >reasonable definition to me.
>
> Remember the women who damaged a Trident support vessel in Loch
> Something? The courts decided that it was legal action.
>
> Dratted if I can bring this back on topic, though.
>
How about suggestions for DW terrorists ? I nominate the Elucidated
Brethren of the Ebon Night. In GG, they take control of a dragon [1],
and use it to terrorise the population of Ankh-Morpork.
Cheers,
Nigel.
[1] The DW equivalent of an aircraft - see TCOM.
Richard Taylor
> Richard Taylor wrote:
> ...
>
>>Yeah, alright. I was lazy in my definition. The smoking GNU are still
>>terrorists though, despite your pointing out the flaws in my post. Sorry
>>you prefer not to see that, but hey, I didn't write the book, I only
>>read it.
>
>
> OK - what acts of terror did they commit? Who felt the terror that they
> inflicted?
The company that LEGALLY own the Grand Trunk.
> I suppose that there were some people who felt a bit of
> terror over the fact that they were going to lose a great deal of
> money, but if you're going to include that kind of terror, then
> ordinary stock market activity constitutes terrorism as well.
>
Stop being an apologist for criminals.
Richard Taylor
> Richard Taylor wrote:
>
>>Rhiannon Sands wrote:
>>
>>>"Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>news:d7vvde$dbq$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> ...
>
>>>>To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
>>>>terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs. You can keep
>>>>'em. There's too much wriggle-room in that grey area between terrorists
>>>>and freedom fighters for me to be comfortable regarding either of them
>>>>as anything but despicable.
>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder where that leaves Luke Skywalker then?
>>
>>As a fictional character in a simplistic story, written by a pathetic
>>hack without a real social context.
>
>
> His fictional nature, the simplicity of the story, your judgement that
> the author is pathetic, and the lack of social content are all
> irrelevant to the reason he was mentioned.
>
> Luke Skywalker helped destroy an enormously valuable piece of property
> which was legally the possession of another, for reasons that were far
> more than adequate to justify doing so. By your definition, that makes
> him a terrorist, despite the fact that the only people who felt terror
> as a direct result of that act were military personell, who have always
> been considered legitimate targets in warfare.
Oh, really? Law abiding Imperial citizens didn't wonder if they might be
the next target? You sure, are you
> Terrorism has nothing to do with the destruction of property, and
> everything to do with the deliberate infliction of terror. Destruction
> of property often happens as a result of terrorist actions, but that's
> not what qualifies them as terrorist actions. It's quite feasible,
> though rather uncommon, to inflict terror without destroying any
> property whatsoever.
Yeah, lazy post on my part. Skywalker was a terrorist too, though.
Richard Taylor
Slandered? Geeze.
Apologist.
kuy...@wizard.net
The thing that defines terrorism is the intent to break the will of the
enemy by inflicting terror on civilians. It's the intent that matters,
not the results. If the will isn't broken, if the citizens aren't
terrorized, it's still terrorism. If there was no intent to cause
terror, it's not terrorism, even if terror is in fact created. The
newspaper delivery woman strikes utter terror in my wife's dog. That
doesn't make the delivery woman a terrorist, it just means that my dog
is crazy.
If Imperial citizens decide to feel terror because the Rebel Alliance
committed a legitimate act of warfare, that decision is the
responsibility of the citizens, not something that the Rebel Alliance
should be held at fault for.
> > Terrorism has nothing to do with the destruction of property, and
> > everything to do with the deliberate infliction of terror. Destruction
> > of property often happens as a result of terrorist actions, but that's
> > not what qualifies them as terrorist actions. It's quite feasible,
> > though rather uncommon, to inflict terror without destroying any
> > property whatsoever.
>
> Yeah, lazy post on my part. Skywalker was a terrorist too, though.
Please identify the terrorist acts he was responsible for? I might be
wrong, but all that I remember are lawful acts of war. The Death Star
was legally the property of the Imperium, but it was also a military
installation, and therefore a legitimate target.
kuy...@wizard.net
> kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
> > Richard Taylor wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>Yeah, alright. I was lazy in my definition. The smoking GNU are still
> >>terrorists though, despite your pointing out the flaws in my post. Sorry
> >>you prefer not to see that, but hey, I didn't write the book, I only
> >>read it.
> >
> >
> > OK - what acts of terror did they commit? Who felt the terror that they
> > inflicted?
>
> The company that LEGALLY own the Grand Trunk.
>
> > I suppose that there were some people who felt a bit of
> > terror over the fact that they were going to lose a great deal of
> > money, but if you're going to include that kind of terror, then
> > ordinary stock market activity constitutes terrorism as well.
> >
>
> Stop being an apologist for criminals.
The correct term for destruction of property belonging to another is
vandalism, not terrorism. I'm not being an apologist, I'm merely
pointing out that you're incorrectly identifying the nature of the
crime that they committed. Since the crime you've accused them of is
far nastier than the crime they actually committed, that constitutes
slander.
However, the incorrect definition that you use for that crime is
actually the correct definition for a different crime, one that they
actually committed, so I suppose in a very private sense you weren't
slandering them. However, you can't expect people to hear "terrorist"
and realize that they need to translate it from RichardTaylorSpeak into
conventional English as "vandal"; so in a public sense they were indeed
slandered.
William Black
> Brian Wakeling wrote:
> > Or guerillas - from the Spanish for "little war". They don't
> > have the men, the money, the organisation, or the weapons to
> > fight the enemy one-on-one in a traditional way, so instead
> > they attack the enemy where they are weakest, and melt away
> > into the background.
>
> Yep. Still evildoers. Sorry.
And the 'contra' forces?
Or the Cubans sponsored by the US who attack Cuba?
William Black
"JB" <Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu> wrote in message
news:d83ddk$mnk$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
Lesley Weston
Yay! I haven't seen "straw man" here for a long time - I do love finding old
familiar things. The French Resistance went after soldiers, collaborators
and other military targets; terrorists go after civilians.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
ab...@hotmail.com wrote on 07/06/2005 9:25 AM:
>
> "JB" <Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu> wrote in message
> news:d83ddk$mnk$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>> One man's terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Let's see..
>>
>> crime fighters fight crime
>> fire fighters fight fire
>> What do freedom fighters fight?
>>
> That's an incredibly puerile comment.
No it's not - it's a funny comment, as is appropriate here.
Tom Shannon
William Black wrote:
> "Tom Shannon" <tsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118086509.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Emacs (assuming you mean the editor) predates M$.
> >
> > And the GNU foundation, for that matter. Not entirely sure when the
> > relationship started or what the history was before that but I know its
> > a pretty old program.
>
> Emacs was an old editor when I did a UNIX course in about 1983.
>
> Mind you, it was better than Ed :-)
[shudder]
:)
Tom S.
Tom Shannon
Orjan Westin
>
> Straw man.
Off topic.
William Black
"Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BECB337F.379F4%
> Yay! I haven't seen "straw man" here for a long time - I do love finding
old
> familiar things. The French Resistance went after soldiers, collaborators
> and other military targets; terrorists go after civilians.
So what do you call a collaborator?
It's a civilian who disagrees with the freedom fighter...
I should add that some bits of the various resistance groups on the Allied
side in WWII killed innocents as well.
Alec Cawley
Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu says...
> Peter Ellis wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, JB wrote:
> >
> >> ncw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> To take a recent example - the Millenium Bridge in London also suffered
> >>> the effects of feedback because it had a resonent frequency the same as
> >>> the natural walking pace of the people who were crossing it.
> >>
> >>
> >> This sounds fishy (I'm not calling you a liar, but I am skeptical).
> >> In the first place people of different
> >> sizes and physical 'vitality' have grossly different gates of walking.
> >
> >
> > Fishy or not, it happened. The problem was that the oscillation was a
> > side-to-side one rather than an up-and-down one due to the innovative
> > bridge design.
> >
> > As the bridge began to sway, this had the effect of causing the
> > walkers to "lurch" and naturally fall into step with the swaying of
> > the bridge, thus amplifying an initially small perturbation.
> >
> > If you like, the resonance acted on the crowd as well as the bridge,
> > causing them to adopt the same period and phase of step. The video
> > footage is quite striking.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Wow. I'd like to see that. I guess if both systems are coupling then
> the bridge can force people to walk in cadence... OTOH: did they
> know that it was the beating of feet which drove the oscillations?
It was not the up-and-down oscillation of footsteps, which is well known
and for which they had planned. It was the side-to-side oscillation of
left-foot, right-foot. The rather dramatic design of the bridge meant
that it actually had very little damping in the horizontal plane, though
plenty in the others, which they had though of. The side-to-side
lurching caused people to accentuate their own side-to-side pace in
order to stabilize themselves against the destabilising movement. They
believe that the bridge was actually well within its structural limits,
so that there was no actual danger, and that the number of people
required to induce the oscillation was a number far larger than they
ever expected to use the bridge at any one time - except on the day of
its first public opening.
--
@lec ©awley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
Alec Cawley
Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu says...
>
> Not to quibble, but it is a negative feedback system (and negative
> feedbacks oscillate; postive feedback
> systsems tend to grow- often exponentially).
Negative feedback systems oscillate only if the feedback is not direct
and linear - if, for example, there is a delay in the feedback. A
"pure" negative feedback system will not oscillate.
A positive feedback system will grow exponentially only if there is not
component in the system capable of (temporary) saturation. If, as often
happens, some part of the system saturates, you will tend to get
oscillations of increasing amplitude.
>
> >The "destruction pattern" is more subtle. An input which is superficially
> >totally normal has a results quite outside the normal range.
> >
> Typically, these 'destructive patterns' resonate with the system and
> that is what causes the failure... because
> even a low amplitude drive of a system at its resonance frequency can
> grow to ridiculous amplitudes. A
> fine example is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge - which was being whipped by
> the wind - which happened to be
> gusting at the bridge's resonant frequency - and with each oscillation
> the bridge swayed by greater amounts until
> it fell apart.
If you Google on Tacoma Narrows, you will find that the oscillation was
nowhere near the bridge's resonant ferquancy. It was an oscillation
failure, but one caused by an oscillation force stretching it beyond its
mechanical limit. Resonance was not, according to several of the
websites about it, involved.
>
> >This could
> >be a definition of great literature. Great literature uses the same
> >letters and the same words as ordinary literature, and yet has an effect
> >quite disproportionate to the number of letters/words read.
> >
> Methinks thou hast extended the analogy waay past its realm of validity.
Analogy stretched to metaphor - but I think it applies.
Alec Cawley
says...
> Lesley Weston wrote:
> > in article d7vvai$dbq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk, Richard Taylor at
> > sol...@fastmail.fm wrote on 05/06/2005 3:45 PM:
> >
> >
> >>William Black wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> >>>news:d7vl4e$l1e$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Lesley Weston wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Positive feedback is always destructive - which would come as a surprise
> >>>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>all the feel-good gurus and elementary-school teachers of the world.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It's equally true in that context, naturally.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And untrue in electronics where 'positive feedback' is used in various types
> >>>of oscillators
> >>>
> >>
> >>I was making a sociological point, rather than an electronics one.
> >
> >
> > Actually, I was making a joke.
> >
>
> Many a true word has been spoken in jest. Constant positive feedback
> leads to children growing up in the belief that they can do no wrong.
> This leads to all sorts of social problems. I'm very much of the school
> of thought that one should criticise as frequently - but no more - than
> one praises a child.
Most social relationships require positive feedback to work, in
establishing mutual trust: I trust you a little, which you detect and
trust me a little bit more, which I detect... and so on. If such
positive feedback relationships did not exist, society would collapse.
And as for romantic love...
Alec Cawley
says...
> Peter Ellis wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
> >
> >>mark wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's the end of the world as we know it, and Rhiannon Sands feels...
> >>>
> >>>>"Richard Taylor" <sol...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>>>>To attempt to destroy that which is legally the possession of another is
> >>>>>terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or wrongs.
> >>>>
> >>>>I wonder where that leaves Luke Skywalker then?
> >>>
> >>>As a terrorist, of course.
> >>
> >>Well, that definition brands all warfare as terrorism, since virtually
> >>everything you have to destroy in order to defeat a foreign country in
> >>war is the property of that country.
> >
> >
> > It also encompasses breaking and entering, various consequences of
> > domestic rows, and toddlers throwing things. Only yesterday the cat was
> > busy comitting terrorism on our footstool. Since the definition given
> > above doesn't mention premeditation, it's also apparently a terrorist
> > offence for me to accidentally break a glass when visiting a friend.
> > Guess the clumsy had better watch out.
>
> Yeah, alright. I was lazy in my definition. The smoking GNU are still
> terrorists though, despite your pointing out the flaws in my post. Sorry
> you prefer not to see that, but hey, I didn't write the book, I only
> read it.
In my opinion, central to the concept of "terrorist" is the word
"terror". Terrorists endeavour to achieve their aims, whether worthy or
unworthy, by causing terror to some section of the populace. IMO,
terrorism is never acceptable regardless of the worth of the cause it is
for. However, I cannot shoehorn the behavior of the Smoking GNU into
this mould which, IMO, respect for the English language compels.
Vandalism, certainly. Wanton destruction, if you will. But not
terrorism. While terrorism can never be justified, such acts of
destruction can, in some circumstances, be justified. For example, in
police operations: police are justified in breaking down the door behind
which murder is threatened. Indeed, civilians are justified in breaking
down that door.
Alec Cawley
says...
> kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
> > Richard Taylor wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>Yeah, alright. I was lazy in my definition. The smoking GNU are still
> >>terrorists though, despite your pointing out the flaws in my post. Sorry
> >>you prefer not to see that, but hey, I didn't write the book, I only
> >>read it.
> >
> >
> > OK - what acts of terror did they commit? Who felt the terror that they
> > inflicted?
>
> The company that LEGALLY own the Grand Trunk.
Fear of financial loss, is not, without distortions to the language,
terror. Or all pickpockets are terrorists.
>
> > I suppose that there were some people who felt a bit of
> > terror over the fact that they were going to lose a great deal of
> > money, but if you're going to include that kind of terror, then
> > ordinary stock market activity constitutes terrorism as well.
> >
>
> Stop being an apologist for criminals.
There can be times when what would normally be a crime becomes
justifiable in preventing a greater crime - see my earlier remark about
police breaking doors down. YOu can, of course, argue that this is not
such a case. But you cannot argue that no destructive act can ever be
justified. *If* the Grand Trunk was stolen goods, then a public spirited
citizen was entitled to perform minor damage (such as breaking locks, or
a particular bit of machinery) to recover them. The actual damage to one
machine in one tower on the Grand Trunk can at most have amounts to
hundreds of dollars. There argument must be about that *if*, not about
the mere fact of damage to property.
Alec Cawley
brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> But terrorists *kill* civilians, they don't just inconvenience them. I'd say
> that there's a huge difference between terrorism and damaging property,
> though neither is to be encouraged. As to freedom fighters, yes I agree they
> are terrorists whatever they're called.
I would say that someone who only threatens, convincingly, to kill is a
terrorist. For example, those who threaten to poison supermarket
products. Or those who plant bombs then phone warnings so no-one gets
killed - as the IRA often did. Their intent was to break the will of the
population, and thus of the government, by causing terror. At some
points in their campaign, they made significant efforts to minimise the
actual, as opposed to threatened, killing of civilians. This does not
make them, IMO, any less terrorists.
Alec Cawley
says...
> It was a lazy post on my part, but the Smokeing GNU will still be
> terrorists in my view, since they are trying to destroy that which
> supports the only long-range communications system that is available.
Not destroy, temporarily disable in a manner which can be repaired with
modest (in proportion the total cost of the network) expenditure. As
soon as the first signal drum breaks, the message transmission fails and
no further towers will be affected. the affected tower can be repaired
in days - or one of the temporary towers brought in even faster. The
towers, signallers and much of the mechanism are untouched.
Lesley Weston
kuy...@wizard.net at kuy...@wizard.net wrote on 06/06/2005 7:31 PM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
> ...
>> though neither is to be encouraged. As to freedom fighters, yes I agree they
>> are terrorists whatever they're called.
>
> All freedom fighters? No matter how they fight for freedom? Even if
> they obey all applicable international laws with respect to the conduct
> of warfare?
>
> There are people who've been labelled "freedom fighters" who were
> actually terrorists, but that's a long way from saying that all freedom
> fighters are terrorists.
>
Are there any freedom fighters who declare war formally and then conduct
themselves according to all the laws pertaining to warfare, including the
Geneva convention? I can't think of any; all the cases that come to mind
involve attacks on civilians, except for the Resistance in France and the
other countries occupied by the Nazis, and I don't think even they declared
war or worried too much about the Geneva convention.
Lesley Weston
sol...@fastmail.fm wrote on 07/06/2005 4:47 AM:
> kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
>> Richard Taylor wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Yeah, alright. I was lazy in my definition. The smoking GNU are still
>>> terrorists though, despite your pointing out the flaws in my post. Sorry
>>> you prefer not to see that, but hey, I didn't write the book, I only
>>> read it.
>>
>>
>> OK - what acts of terror did they commit? Who felt the terror that they
>> inflicted?
>
> The company that LEGALLY own the Grand Trunk.
>
>> I suppose that there were some people who felt a bit of
>> terror over the fact that they were going to lose a great deal of
>> money, but if you're going to include that kind of terror, then
>> ordinary stock market activity constitutes terrorism as well.
>>
>
> Stop being an apologist for criminals.
>
What criminals? We are talking about GP, right? A work of *fiction*? Or
perhaps you mean that RW stockbrokers are criminals, in which case I might
be inclined to agree with you.
Kristian Damm Jensen
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> sol...@fastmail.fm wrote on 05/06/2005 3:47 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Brian Wakeling wrote:
>>>
>>>> In a speech called d7vldn$ls5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk,
>>>> Richard Taylor uttered thus:
>>>
>>>>>> 2/ GNU - <http://www.gnu.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>> GNU is not a destructive weapon, and it was largely
>>>>> inappropriate for Pratchett to use the name in this
>>>>> context, since the Smoking GNU, whatever their intentions,
>>>>> are no better than terrorists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist."
>>>> Said by probably lots of people, but the one I'm thinking of
>>>> is "Star" by Gene (IIRC) in 1997.
>>>
>>> another is terrorism in my book, never mind the damn rights or
>>> grey area between terrorists and freedom fighters for me to be
>>> comfortable regarding either of them as anything but despicable.
>>
>>
>> I'd say that there's a huge difference between terrorism and
>> fighters, yes I agree they are terrorists whatever they're called.
>
> terrorists in my view, since they are trying to destroy that which
> supports the only long-range communications system that is available.
You seem to willfully ignore the point many people has been trying to make:
Terrorism is the act of instilling terror in a person , on purpose.
Destruction of property is illegal, but that does not in itself make it
terrorism. Why do you insist on calling it terrorism?
Kristian
--
"Sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this, but it is, in the
same way that Mount Everest is and Alma Cogan isn't." The Album of the
Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy
Grail.
Lesley Weston
ab...@hotmail.com wrote on 07/06/2005 12:40 PM:
>
> "Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BECB337F.379F4%
>
>> Yay! I haven't seen "straw man" here for a long time - I do love finding
> old
>> familiar things. The French Resistance went after soldiers, collaborators
>> and other military targets; terrorists go after civilians.
>
> So what do you call a collaborator?
>
> It's a civilian who disagrees with the freedom fighter...
No, it's an ex-civilian who has made themselves into a military target by
collaborating with the occupying force of the enemy country.
>
> I should add that some bits of the various resistance groups on the Allied
> side in WWII killed innocents as well.
Intentionally? Without any military objective being involved?